Speaker 1: This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Hear's the
Speaker 1: thing from iHeart Radio. Almost exactly nine years ago, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump descended the escalator at his Fifth Avenue residence to
Speaker 1: announce his candidacy for president. Since that infamous moment, the
Speaker 1: political discourse in the United States has disintegrated. We have
Speaker 1: never been more angry, indignant, and divided than we are
Speaker 1: today in the post Trump world. However, one voice that
Speaker 1: cuts clearly through the noise is that of my guest today.
Speaker 1: George Conway, the lawyer and commentator, has become a leading
Speaker 1: voice in the conservative movement. He was originally a supporter
Speaker 1: of the Trump campaign, but soon stood firmly against the president,
Speaker 1: all while being married to Trump's senior counselor, Kelly Ann Conway.
Speaker 1: George Conway is one of the founders of the Lincoln Project,
Speaker 1: a super pac formed in twenty nineteen whose core mission
Speaker 1: is to defeat Donald Trump. He's also a contributing writer
Speaker 1: at The Atlantic and host of the podcast George Conway
Speaker 1: Explains It All. Conway is so committed to the anti
Speaker 1: Trump cause he recently donated more than nine hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty nine thousand dollars to the Biden Victory Fund. Growing up,
Speaker 1: Conway's father worked for defense contractor Raytheon. I was curious
Speaker 1: to learn how his upbringing affected him politically.
Speaker 2: He tested missile defense systems on ships and so he would,
Speaker 2: you know, they would install them and test them and
Speaker 2: calibrate them, and he traveled a lot to go to
Speaker 2: various ports to do that.
Speaker 1: You go to Harvard in eighty four biochemical sciences and
Speaker 1: you graduate magna cum launde. Why that?
Speaker 2: Why the switch? Why? I don't know. I mean, I
Speaker 2: think it.
Speaker 1: Was because what was the original plan.
Speaker 2: My original plan was probably the major in economics and
Speaker 2: then go to law school. But my parents kind of
Speaker 2: was thinking, oh man, people lawyers not making any money.
Speaker 2: You should become a doctor. And I had all these
Speaker 2: friends who were pre mets, and I decided, okay, well
Speaker 2: let me go. It was a mess, but I figured
Speaker 2: it out.
Speaker 1: It was a pass.
Speaker 2: It was a second pass. And then I realized that,
Speaker 2: you know, this is not what I wanted to do,
Speaker 2: and I'd go back to plan A. But it was
Speaker 2: too late to really change majors again. So I went
Speaker 2: back to So I just finished off the biochemistry, just
Speaker 2: applied to law school, and it kind of worked. It
Speaker 2: was helpful because you know, there weren't that many biochem
Speaker 2: majors applying to law school, so it was actually probably
Speaker 2: advantageous to me.
Speaker 1: So I know, it just worked out. Now, your your
Speaker 1: parents they were from where originally.
Speaker 2: My mother was from the Philippines and my father's from me.
Speaker 1: What was his educational background? Like, are you the golden
Speaker 1: boy when you're going to Harvard and yeah, law.
Speaker 2: School, I guess you could say that. I mean she
Speaker 2: had My mother had a master's in chemistry and a
Speaker 2: master's in computer science. Your dad, my dad, I think
Speaker 2: had an sociate's degree and something. He joined the Navy
Speaker 2: at like eighteen or nineteen learned learned on the job
Speaker 2: that way. Sure.
Speaker 1: And when you were going to Harvard and then you
Speaker 1: go on to Yale Law School, you then of course
Speaker 1: become the editor of the Yale Law chan editor one
Speaker 1: of many. Well while you're an editor, I'm sorry, and
Speaker 1: then the president of the school's chapter of the Federalist Society, Yes,
Speaker 1: were your parent Was your household a conservative household? No,
Speaker 1: I you know that's planting a flag, I would say,
Speaker 1: the Federalist Society.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it wasn't much. It wasn't really that much
Speaker 2: of a flag back then in a way because it
Speaker 2: wasn't I mean, the Federal Society didn't have all the
Speaker 2: connotations it had today. It was much smaller, and it
Speaker 2: was just sort of like it was where anybody who
Speaker 2: was basically center or right could basically have a political discussion.
Speaker 2: And those were different times, I think.
Speaker 1: No, So it was not you were sitting there saying
Speaker 1: this is like.
Speaker 2: This was basically it was basically like you know, people
Speaker 2: who was provoted for Reagan.
Speaker 1: Essentially, what was the campus of Yale when you're there
Speaker 1: for law school or either one? What was the campus
Speaker 1: life in the eighties there?
Speaker 2: It was very nice, It was very peaceful, It wasn't
Speaker 2: the only real controversy on the campus at that point
Speaker 2: in time was there were these series of cafeteria workers
Speaker 2: strikes which tended to divide people, and in one of
Speaker 2: people that want to cross picket lines and come into
Speaker 2: the law school and some people, you know, said, look,
Speaker 2: we're paying twish we got to come into law school,
Speaker 2: and and it was a little bit divisive to that extent,
Speaker 2: and it was it was disruptive of campus life, but
Speaker 2: it didn't last very long.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the Vietnam thing in the seventies.
Speaker 2: There wasn't nothing. There was a contract. Now there was,
Speaker 2: and then there were there were these very these encamped,
Speaker 2: very small encampments by today's standard, pushing for divestment of
Speaker 2: companies that did business in South Africa. But it wasn't
Speaker 2: the kind of environment you Yeah, I mean it was,
Speaker 2: it was. It wasn't a big deal. What did you
Speaker 2: think of Reagan? I liked Reagan. I mean I I
Speaker 2: grew up in the seventies and eighties, and I grew
Speaker 2: up in the seventies basically, which was the shadow of
Speaker 2: the sixties, where you still had a lot of people
Speaker 2: thinking that if you just passed the right law and
Speaker 2: came up with the right scheme, you could create nirvana
Speaker 2: in society, and that could be very expensive. And I
Speaker 2: came to the conclusion that people were overdoing it, that
Speaker 2: you know, you kind of have to let things fall
Speaker 2: where they may, and that the free market was sometimes.
Speaker 1: Often there are winners and losers, that.
Speaker 2: There are winners and losers, and that you can't you
Speaker 2: can't manipulate every outcome in society and try to make
Speaker 2: it perfect, because if when you try to do that,
Speaker 2: you basically end up squelching creativity and squelching the economy.
Speaker 2: And I, you know, I became kind of a free marketeer,
Speaker 2: and that's what, you know, I was persuaded. That's how
Speaker 2: I became a Republican.
Speaker 1: Really, But I would assume that your your leaning as
Speaker 1: a free marketeer would include the people played by the rules.
Speaker 2: Too, absolutely, power being absolutely obey regulation. Absolutely, And if
Speaker 2: you would if I had come of political age in
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy five, I would have, you know, I consider
Speaker 2: my Actually, when I was in high school, I considered
Speaker 2: myself a Scoop Jackson Democrat because at that point I
Speaker 2: was anti Republican because of Nixon. I thought Nixon. My
Speaker 2: first political memories were ten or eleven years old watching
Speaker 2: the Watergate hearings, and you know, I found I found Nixon.
Speaker 2: I found Nixon deeply offensive, and I found you know,
Speaker 2: and that sort of I mean, I've I've hated corrupt
Speaker 2: politicians ever since. But then the Republican Party kind of
Speaker 2: cleaned up its act, in my view, and then when
Speaker 2: they do that, it seemed like the late seventies and
Speaker 2: it just seemed they, you know, once Nixon was gone,
Speaker 2: things were better, but I felt, you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: it was the era of stagflation and Ted Kennedy was
Speaker 2: pushing wage and price controls, which I thought was absolutely insane.
Speaker 2: You can't regulate the economy that way. And I kind
Speaker 2: of drove me, drove me a little to the right.
Speaker 2: And plus, you know, I grew up in Massachusetts, and
Speaker 2: and you know, it's just you get kind of fed
Speaker 2: up with the Liberals at a certain point growing up.
Speaker 2: So I've always been a bit of a contrary and
Speaker 2: you put me in one group, I kind of kind
Speaker 2: of rebel against it and push back on things. And
Speaker 2: that's I guess that's part of the party to me.
Speaker 1: I would love, I said to myself periodically, not often,
Speaker 1: but I said periodically, because because I'm not some crazy
Speaker 1: progressive in one sense, there's things I think there are.
Speaker 1: There are conservative thoughts I think are admirable and practical.
Speaker 1: But I mean I've always thought to myself, you know,
Speaker 1: give me a Republican I could vote for in terms
Speaker 1: of who they are as a person, and then of
Speaker 1: course what their policies are. I can't hand in hand.
Speaker 1: And I always viewed, you know, Reagan and then Bush
Speaker 1: Junior as this guy that was like the guy you
Speaker 1: brought with you to get you into the party. He
Speaker 1: knew Jeff well that he was the front man they opened,
Speaker 1: got the door open for you. Meaning I had zero
Speaker 1: respects for Reagan as a person. Everybody and I know said,
Speaker 1: I just said to you before, what do you think
Speaker 1: of Reagan? And you said the same thing. Everybody I've
Speaker 1: ever spoken to about Reagan said, they go, I like Reagan.
Speaker 1: You know the likability fact. They like Reagan. And I
Speaker 1: have many friends who worked for Reagan, where as I
Speaker 1: got out of college. But my thing was Reagan and
Speaker 1: Bush Junior. I thought to myself, these guys just have
Speaker 1: no right to be president the United States. It's none.
Speaker 1: They are hood ornaments on a vehicle and under the
Speaker 1: hood of that car, or all the other people writing
Speaker 1: the policy, creating the policy, explaining to him the policy.
Speaker 1: He was a host of a show. And I thought
Speaker 1: the same thing. For Bush Junior, I thought he would
Speaker 1: go again eight more years of a guy who's I
Speaker 1: go on the street and find a guy or a
Speaker 1: woman started to be president United States right now rather
Speaker 1: than him. These guys are all functionaries. Am I offending you?
Speaker 2: No, I'm not agreeing with you because you're I actually
Speaker 2: thought Reagan had some good instincts. I would prefer more
Speaker 2: intellect actual presidents, There's no question about that. But you
Speaker 2: have to take what you can get. And you know,
Speaker 2: I thought I thought Reagan's overall direction was good. I
Speaker 2: thought George W. Bush I had mixed feelings about because
Speaker 2: I was very much against the Iraq War, although I
Speaker 2: liked him personally.
Speaker 1: How did you feel in twenty sixteen when Trump won
Speaker 1: and of course Hillary lost. Was Hillary's Clinton someone who
Speaker 1: troubled you?
Speaker 2: She did? I mean, I didn't like the ethos of
Speaker 2: the Clinton administration. I kind of learned not to like them,
Speaker 2: and I would vote her for her today over Trump,
Speaker 2: knowing what I know today. But you know, at the time,
Speaker 2: I thought that he would not be quite normal, but
Speaker 2: I thought he was like the best we were going
Speaker 2: to be able to do. When I thought that the
Speaker 2: institutions and the people around him would cabin him and
Speaker 2: kind of teach him how to get by. And I
Speaker 2: thought that a normal person would, you know, even if
Speaker 2: they were eccentric, would adapt their behavior to make it
Speaker 2: functional for the job so that they would be remembered well.
Speaker 2: And what happened as I watched that in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: is like, this isn't happening. What is wrong with this guy?
Speaker 2: And that's sort of what got me thinking about, well,
Speaker 2: you know, the guy's psychological condition and whether or not
Speaker 2: he was good for the country, and drew some negative
Speaker 2: conclusions after that after watching him. He's worse. Basically everything
Speaker 2: is about him. That's the thing that I thought makes
Speaker 2: the difference with politicians who become present and is they
Speaker 2: realize how much the office is greater than they are
Speaker 2: and how much responsibility they have, and it chastens them
Speaker 2: and it makes them more humble in a way. And
Speaker 2: with Trump, there's nothing. Because Trump is the most narcissistic
Speaker 2: human being you could ever imagine, and it's all about him.
Speaker 2: Everything is about him. Pathologically, hath alot, He's no, He's
Speaker 2: absolutely is narcissistic personality disorder. He's also antisocial, has an
Speaker 2: antisocial personality disorder. I mean, he's a very very disturbed
Speaker 2: human being. And that's why he could never adapt. He can't.
Speaker 2: He can only he can only get worse, he can't
Speaker 2: get better.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing about him also is that when he
Speaker 1: wins and Hillary loses, I thought to myself, for most
Speaker 1: let's say Republicans were even undecided, even Independence was voting
Speaker 1: against Hillary because of policies that she expounded, or was
Speaker 1: it about her being a woman?
Speaker 2: No, I mean the country will ever vote for a woman. Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 2: I think the country could vote for a woman. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think there are some women I think would be
Speaker 2: great presidents. I think, I mean, I don't. I'd want
Speaker 2: to see them more of them in action, like an
Speaker 2: Abigail Spamberger or I think there are some very very
Speaker 2: good women in politics. I think Nikki Haley actually if
Speaker 2: I mean there are things I don't like about her
Speaker 2: and the way she conducted the campaign, there are things
Speaker 2: I loved about her that in the way she conducted
Speaker 2: a campaign, I think she actually would be potentially a
Speaker 2: very good president. And I think that I think that
Speaker 2: if she had gotten the nomination, which was never going
Speaker 2: to happen, I think there's a good chance she could
Speaker 2: have been resident. So, you know, I don't I don't think.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think there's certain, no doubt there is
Speaker 2: a certain element of the population that might not vote
Speaker 2: for a woman for you know, because of that she's
Speaker 2: a because she's a woman. But then there's gonna be
Speaker 2: a portion of the population that will vote for a
Speaker 2: woman because she's a woman, and maybe that cancels out.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'd leave that to a you know,
Speaker 2: a very highly sent highly a large sample of a poll.
Speaker 2: And then I think there are you know, the people
Speaker 2: who would not vote for a woman are going to
Speaker 2: be people who a probably not going to vote a
Speaker 2: Democrat anyway. So it's I don't, I don't I think
Speaker 2: at this point, I think, you know, a woman comes
Speaker 2: along who is the place, in the right moment, at
Speaker 2: the right time, could easily win the presidency. I mean, like,
Speaker 2: look at these three women and who are basically running
Speaker 2: the state of Michigan. Terrific, terrific, terrific politicians, terrific, very smart.
Speaker 2: You know that That's the reason why it's it's good
Speaker 2: to sort of let people percolate because then you can
Speaker 2: see how they conduct themselves in different situations. But you
Speaker 2: know that trifecta they have in Michigan. I mean, they're
Speaker 2: a little to the left of me, but but I
Speaker 2: just think like they are excellent public servants. Benson the
Speaker 2: Secretary of State, and Dana Nessel. These are the type
Speaker 2: of people. We need more of these people in politics,
Speaker 2: and you know, I wish we had some on the
Speaker 2: Republican side that you know, don't let me see.
Speaker 1: Let me just say this. I was on vacation with
Speaker 1: my family. We wanted to son dance. We're there at
Speaker 1: stein ericson the lodge and there's Romney and he comes
Speaker 1: in with his family and have brunch or something. And
Speaker 1: he's there by himself of reading the paper waiting for somebody.
Speaker 1: He sees me and I wave high and he stands
Speaker 1: up and shakes my hands. He goes, he goes, don't
Speaker 1: stand here for very long as that I want my
Speaker 1: picture taken with you. And we both laughed and and
Speaker 1: I said, and I chatted with him for like three minutes.
Speaker 1: When I walked away and talked to friends of mine
Speaker 1: and said, the guy's so much more three dimensional than
Speaker 1: they packaged him during the campaigns. He had the worst
Speaker 1: fucking campaign staff you could imagine. And I think to myself,
Speaker 1: why does this party, what is the lure and the
Speaker 1: fascination with Trump? When why not Romney someone like him?
Speaker 1: It's beyond my comprehension.
Speaker 2: And you know, but I think it's I think your
Speaker 2: observation is true about about people that they don't always
Speaker 2: project what they are in private publicly. And I you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know why that is. Maybe maybe he was
Speaker 2: an actor could explain that a little better to me.
Speaker 2: But I mean Romney was that way. Bob Dole was
Speaker 2: that way. People said, you know, people who talked to
Speaker 2: Bob Dole and met him privately said he was funny, warm, relaxed.
Speaker 2: And on television he always was a high school gym teacher.
Speaker 2: He always came off a stiff. So they, you know,
Speaker 2: remember the Saturday Night Live impressions, they used to do
Speaker 2: it him and exactly Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole
Speaker 2: again and and and you know it was just and
Speaker 2: then and and same was true of you know, I've
Speaker 2: become friendly with a lot of people who worked for Hillary.
Speaker 2: And I was friendly with my law partner who passed
Speaker 2: away me rest in peace, Bernie Nusbaum, who is very
Speaker 2: very close to missus Clinton. And you know, basically the
Speaker 2: description age when you is that she is just the
Speaker 2: warmest and just lovely, this person you could just sit
Speaker 2: and have a chat with. But I don't know that
Speaker 2: all of that, that all of that projected on television
Speaker 2: as well. But that said, the attraction of Trump I've
Speaker 2: always found mystifying. He doesn't say anything that's particularly intelligent.
Speaker 2: He doesn't. He can be nasty, he can be funny,
Speaker 2: he can actually be funny, but I don't think he
Speaker 2: actually has a sense of humor in the sense that
Speaker 2: normal people have a sense of humor. I think he
Speaker 2: knows that if he says some things that people will laugh,
Speaker 2: but I don't think he has a sense of irony.
Speaker 2: I think his sense of humor what he thinks is
Speaker 2: funny is mocking people, and that sometimes gets laughter. But
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think he has aol of comedy.
Speaker 2: We Well Rickles, though there would there be, there would
Speaker 2: be twists to it, there was a there was funny,
Speaker 2: actually funny, and and Trump Trump is is funny, but
Speaker 2: he actually doesn't mean to be. At times he has
Speaker 2: no idea why he's making people laugh. And and I
Speaker 2: just don't the attraction of him. I think there's an
Speaker 2: authority terrian streak among a lot of people that they
Speaker 2: basically like him because he is all about himself. He
Speaker 2: projects something that they want to be, which is the
Speaker 2: worst in themselves. He brings out the worst in people
Speaker 2: because they look at him and he doesn't have to
Speaker 2: follow the rules. He just basically says, fuck the rules.
Speaker 2: But he's also.
Speaker 1: Capable of burrowing into and finding his way toward a
Speaker 1: place where he has the least resistance. In his life.
Speaker 1: Trump is someone who he just gets up every day
Speaker 1: and there's no one there to say no.
Speaker 2: Right, There's no one there to say no, because if
Speaker 2: you say no, they're banished. Right, And that's been his
Speaker 2: entire life. And you know, he has two modes of
Speaker 2: operation to get what he wants. He can be extremely flattering,
Speaker 2: but then he can be an incredible bully, and nobody
Speaker 2: wants to deal with the bully, so they just give in.
Speaker 2: And that's part of how he gets what he wants.
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, for example, when his trial downtown,
Speaker 2: he gets he got what he wants in certain ways
Speaker 2: that may end up having bit him. But the other
Speaker 2: thing is, I think part of his appeal is that
Speaker 2: he creates a permission structure for people to be their
Speaker 2: worst cells because you can let out your anger. These
Speaker 2: people are bad, yeah, fuck them, And he brings out
Speaker 2: the worst in people.
Speaker 1: George Conway, if you enjoy conversations with leading political voices.
Speaker 1: Check out my episode with California Representative Adam Schiff.
Speaker 3: I felt during the Obama administration and during the first
Speaker 3: Obama campaign that a lot of young people were inspired
Speaker 3: the same way Democrats have been inspired by Kennedy and
Speaker 3: Republicans have been inspired by Reagan.
Speaker 2: Now I think that.
Speaker 3: They're you know, the vast reaction is just revulsion at
Speaker 3: what they see going on. The one positive that comes
Speaker 3: out of it, though, is that people have recognized that
Speaker 3: they can no longer sit on the sideline. So I
Speaker 3: can't tell you how many people have told me over
Speaker 3: the last couple of years that they have never been
Speaker 3: politically involved before, but now they realize they have to be.
Speaker 1: To hear more of my conversation with Adam Schiff, go
Speaker 1: to Here's the Thing dot org. After the break, George
Speaker 1: Conway shares the ways in which he agrees with a
Speaker 1: position of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm Alec Baldwin
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Here's the Thing. Early in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, George Conway was vocal about what he saw
Speaker 1: as instability and chaos within the White House. He was
Speaker 1: instrumental in forming the group Checks and Balances to combat
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's betrayals of bedrock legal norms. Czechs and
Speaker 1: Balances eventually became the Society for the Rule of Law,
Speaker 1: and Conway is its board president.
Speaker 2: This was a group that I formed in twenty eighteen
Speaker 2: because I thought that the Federal Society and other conservative
Speaker 2: legal groups weren't really taking seriously the threats to the
Speaker 2: rule of law that Donald Trump presented. Remember this is
Speaker 2: pre insurrection, pre January sixth, and the real threat there
Speaker 2: was that, you know, his attacks on his own attorney
Speaker 2: general and his attacks on courts. And so we formed
Speaker 2: this group to basically speak out about these issues because
Speaker 2: we didn't think that the you know, I mean, the
Speaker 2: mainstream conservative legal organizations were too much trying to not
Speaker 2: tick off Trump and were busy worrying about placing people
Speaker 2: on the judiciary or placing people in the government. So
Speaker 2: we were actually the opposite of that, and we were
Speaker 2: basically we consisted mainly a lot of them were older
Speaker 2: guys who worked in the Reagan administration where they basically said, well,
Speaker 2: this is the conservatism that we had back in the day,
Speaker 2: and then some younger people. So we weren't really into
Speaker 2: judicial appointments. But now we have morphed that group into
Speaker 2: a new group called the Society for the Rule of
Speaker 2: Law Institute, and we've revamped it and we're you know,
Speaker 2: we're totally talking about exactly the threat that we see
Speaker 2: to the rule of law and to democracy that trump Ism,
Speaker 2: the movement, and the way the direction of the conservative
Speaker 2: movement is bringing us.
Speaker 1: When you see what Trump and his minions have wrought
Speaker 1: in terms of judicial policy, Roe v. Wade is the
Speaker 1: obvious example. Were you indifferent or do you consider the
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade the situation decision of victory?
Speaker 2: Neither. My thing about Roe v. Wade was, Look, if
Speaker 2: I were a state legislator in nineteen seventy three, the
Speaker 2: year that Roe was adopted, I would probably have adopted
Speaker 2: you know, I probably would have voted for a statue
Speaker 2: that was not dissimilar to what Roe came up with.
Speaker 2: The problem with Roe was that it wasn't judging. It
Speaker 2: was basically the creation of a statutory scheme, and it
Speaker 2: was beyond the can of judges to do and the
Speaker 2: ability of judges to do. And you know, there was
Speaker 2: no there's no clear guidance in the Constitution or even
Speaker 2: a warrant in the Constitution to do it. So I
Speaker 2: always thought that Roe was wrongly decided that said, the
Speaker 2: time to overrule it would have been in the years
Speaker 2: immediately following that, And I think the Court missed its
Speaker 2: last chance to do that in the nineteen eighties, and
Speaker 2: the notion of overruling something forty nine years later was
Speaker 2: insane and was destined to, you know, create as many
Speaker 2: problems as had been created by the original that basically settled. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, I mean, I think that there
Speaker 2: was room for sort of cutting back a little bit,
Speaker 2: cutting back what cutting back the scope of the abortion
Speaker 2: and privacy right to what is more typical, say in
Speaker 2: a Western European country, because Row is much more permissive
Speaker 2: than what I think a legislative the natural legislative solutions
Speaker 2: would have ended up to be. But then you know
Speaker 2: what we have now are these states going completely insane
Speaker 2: five ten weeks just which is absolutely crazy. It's just
Speaker 2: not something that can be regulated with bright lines, frankly,
Speaker 2: because of all of the complications that can occur, And
Speaker 2: it was just something that you know, it was damaging
Speaker 2: to the court to get into it, and damaging of
Speaker 2: the court to extract itself out of it. So suddenly
Speaker 2: I believe in incarnalism. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had issues
Speaker 2: with Roe v. Wade. Not that she didn't think there
Speaker 2: shouldn't be a right to an abortion that's protected, but
Speaker 2: she believed that Roe, by basically setting forth this a
Speaker 2: detailed scheme, went too far, and what they should have
Speaker 2: done struck down the more extreme statutes and let the
Speaker 2: legislative process take care of itself after that. And I
Speaker 2: always thought she was right because if they've done it
Speaker 2: that way, abortion would never have become the political issue
Speaker 2: that it became, and the courts would have never become
Speaker 2: the political football that they became, and we would be
Speaker 2: better off today. That's all water under the bridge. They
Speaker 2: did what they did, and they did at both times,
Speaker 2: and I think the courts have been damaged by it.
Speaker 1: Now you tilt slightly in that discussion, and you look
Speaker 1: at the court now itself, and I'm you know, I
Speaker 1: view obviously, I'm fully I'm completely enthralled by how Alito
Speaker 1: and Thomas have real liabilities in their marriage. But I wonder,
Speaker 1: what do you think about that? What do you think
Speaker 1: about a guy and his wife hanging in the flag upside.
Speaker 2: I think it's insane.
Speaker 1: And the other one's wife is a big you know,
Speaker 1: Trump's support and everything, and he's and he and both
Speaker 1: of them getting whacked about all this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I would separate them because I think
Speaker 2: they're dissimilar in certain ways. I think you have to
Speaker 2: take each case separately. In the case of Alito, I
Speaker 2: understand that it can be difficult for a conservative judge.
Speaker 2: Judges are isolated to begin with. There's a limit to
Speaker 2: what they can say, the limit to who they can
Speaker 2: talk to, limit to who they can hang around with publicly,
Speaker 2: and they can become very isolated any judge. But it's
Speaker 2: particularly true of the conservatives and the Republicans, because you know,
Speaker 2: Washington's basically much a liberal town. And I think that
Speaker 2: there is this sort of persecution complex that sometimes takes
Speaker 2: hold of the conservative mind of people who serve in
Speaker 2: government in Washington, in particular in the judicial branch. And
Speaker 2: I think that's what happened. I think that just got
Speaker 2: out of hand here where people who were you know,
Speaker 2: upset about Trump or putting up signs, and Missus Alito
Speaker 2: or and maybe Justice Alito tolerated it basically sought to
Speaker 2: give the finger to everybody by putting a flag upside it,
Speaker 2: which is just absolutely better if she didn't, even better
Speaker 2: if she didn't. It's just yeah, I mean you would.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't do that if I were if I held
Speaker 2: no public position, you just you know, But to basically
Speaker 2: do that and people knowing that you're that the family
Speaker 2: member is on the Supreme Court, it's just I cannot
Speaker 2: fathom it.
Speaker 1: Well, this hearkens back to when I said emboldened people
Speaker 1: to say whatever they want. Little did he realize it
Speaker 1: would include the spouses of Supreme Court jell Yes.
Speaker 2: And and the Thomas thing is is a bit different. I mean,
Speaker 2: I think so, well, because he's committed actual financial and
Speaker 2: ethical breaches there that you know, whether or not they're
Speaker 2: strictly prohibited by well, there's no judicial ethics rules that
Speaker 2: apply to Supreme Court justices. I think, you know, these
Speaker 2: filings that he made are completely false, and I think
Speaker 2: a case could be made and has been made by
Speaker 2: some people, but I don't think it'll ever be brought that.
Speaker 2: You know, those those filings were criminal, you know, even
Speaker 2: making false statements of the government's violation of eighteen USC.
Speaker 2: One thousand and one and those you know, if and
Speaker 2: if he didn't pay for to give one of the
Speaker 2: number of examples, you know, they had this guy he
Speaker 2: borrowed money for an r V, a two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty thousand dollars r V, and then didn't got the
Speaker 2: that the loan forgiven, that's taxable income. If he didn't
Speaker 2: report that, that's you know, that's tax fraud. And there
Speaker 2: are just some real issues there with Thomas that I found,
Speaker 2: you know, and as someone who has a hired him
Speaker 2: in the past, I just find that just extremely, extremely disturbing.
Speaker 2: The stuff with the wife. On January sixth, I with Ginny.
Speaker 2: I mean, Ginny has all, you know, everybody in the
Speaker 2: conservative move kind of knew that she's a little bit
Speaker 2: out there and has to say the least, you know,
Speaker 2: they could. They kind of discounted her. I mean, I
Speaker 2: think the press on the left tend to overstate her importance.
Speaker 2: She's not that important, you know, her sending emails to
Speaker 2: people and so on and so forth. The thing that
Speaker 2: really bothers me about Justice Thomas is the financial stuff.
Speaker 2: It's really really very troublesome. And if you remember, you
Speaker 2: go back to the the late sixties, early right in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty nine, I think, or nineteen sixty nine, ers
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy, I mean Justice Fortis Abe for Abe Forest
Speaker 2: Abe fortis right, and he, you know, he accepted some
Speaker 2: money for I think it was like an honorarium. It
Speaker 2: wasn't even that much money. Even if you if you,
Speaker 2: if you, even if you scale it up by inflation,
Speaker 2: I don't think it would get you a two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty thousand dollars RV today. Maybe it would, I
Speaker 2: don't know, but you know, the Nixon administration went to
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Warren and said we're going to prosecute this.
Speaker 2: And Earl Warren and his colleagues went to Fordest saying
Speaker 2: you need to resign, and they made him resign. And
Speaker 2: there was who was who appointed him, Fortis Fortest was
Speaker 2: a Johnson appointee and he was eventually he actually I
Speaker 2: think it was a yeah, he was. It was a
Speaker 2: Johnson appointee, and you know, in close to President Johnson,
Speaker 2: and and you know, Nixon and his people saw an
Speaker 2: opportunity to get a seat on the court, and at
Speaker 2: that point in time, it was not tolerable for a
Speaker 2: justice to take that kind of take money from somebody
Speaker 2: who had a case in a lower court somewhere. It
Speaker 2: wasn't even there wasn't even a direct conflict. And you know,
Speaker 2: if you applied the fordest standard today, Thomas would be gone.
Speaker 1: George Conway, if you're enjoying this conversation, tell a friend
Speaker 1: and be sure to follow. Here's the thing on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. When
Speaker 1: we come back, George Conway shares why he made a
Speaker 1: rather large donation to the Biden victory Fund. I'm Alec
Speaker 1: Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the thing. I spoke
Speaker 1: with George Conway just days before Trump's hush money trial
Speaker 1: in New York City reached a verdict. Conway's opinions hold
Speaker 1: significant weight from many conservatives. I wanted to know if
Speaker 1: there was ever anyone He provided his stamp of approval
Speaker 1: for that.
Speaker 2: He later regretted Donald Trump. Okay, I mean you know, judiciary, No,
Speaker 2: I don't. I don't think so, I don't. I mean
Speaker 2: I never you know, I don't. I don't think you
Speaker 2: know when you don't know exactly how it's reading tea
Speaker 2: leaves And I think I've supported most of all of
Speaker 2: the Republican nominees, and I don't really have issues with
Speaker 2: I don't think that I have issues with Democratic nominees either.
Speaker 2: I would I would be you know, my view would
Speaker 2: be if if the person's qualified and selected by the president,
Speaker 2: unless they have views that are so extreme that they
Speaker 2: can't be acceptable in the normal course of of what
Speaker 2: we see in constitutional discussion, I would vote for you know,
Speaker 2: I would have voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I would
Speaker 2: have voted for Sonya Soto my R. I don't think
Speaker 2: there are any of these people who have been nominated.
Speaker 2: The only one I ever opposed was Harriet not that,
Speaker 2: not that you know, not that my seal of endorsement matters.
Speaker 2: I was just a guy, you know, practicing law in
Speaker 2: New York. But the one time I ever I did
Speaker 2: think that someone was not qualified to be on the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court was when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet
Speaker 2: Myers to become a Supreme Court justice. She was his
Speaker 2: White House counsel. And there was just no evidence that
Speaker 2: she knew anything, you know, that she had any while
Speaker 2: you know, she was a member of the bar, she
Speaker 2: was a member of a big law firm in Dallas,
Speaker 2: you know. But when you looked up at things she
Speaker 2: had written, it was shocking that she could not really
Speaker 2: express herself. She hadn't really litigated, as far as I
Speaker 2: could tell that much. And she it turned out that
Speaker 2: they withdrew her, not because of the opposition among conservatives
Speaker 2: and others to her nomination. She couldn't be prepped. She
Speaker 2: could hold a lot of jobs, but being on the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, she was not qualified for that.
Speaker 1: As we learned when I was at GW study in
Speaker 1: political science with one of our professors said they were
Speaker 1: very kind and respectful toward each other. So the worst
Speaker 1: thing you could say is the Senator would say, I
Speaker 1: have the least amount of higher regard from my colleague
Speaker 1: from Virginia. And now, in the time we have left,
Speaker 1: I want to obviously go into the Carville Madelon nature
Speaker 1: of your life and so you're in that rarefied sphere.
Speaker 1: And where did you meet her? Where did you first meet?
Speaker 2: We met it out in the Hampton's one time. God
Speaker 2: it was doomed. No, we had twenty good years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, I'm well aware of how many kids. You
Speaker 1: guys have four four kids, that's great, that's great now.
Speaker 1: But when you're there and you're going through that process,
Speaker 1: and I see this to you, and I don't know you,
Speaker 1: but I mean i've actually I see you on TV
Speaker 1: all the time, and what I was really intrigued about
Speaker 1: you is a is your evolution. You've evolved over time,
Speaker 1: And no.
Speaker 2: I don't really think I've evolved that much. I think
Speaker 2: that everyone else kind of evolved in a bad direction.
Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't think my views on substantive
Speaker 2: issues or my temperament has changed really for a very
Speaker 2: long time. I just think that what I react to
Speaker 2: is what I would have reacted to if it happened
Speaker 2: ten years ago or twenty years ago, I'd be where
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: But these two points go hand in hand to me,
Speaker 1: which is that a while ago, we talked about Trump
Speaker 1: and his nature and I thought to myself, how does
Speaker 1: Trump maintain his support? And they are key business people,
Speaker 1: billionaires with no obstructions to their giving, and they can
Speaker 1: just pump all the money and they can buy Trump
Speaker 1: the White House, and they want Trump in there because
Speaker 1: unlike other conservative or Republican presidential administrations, they look like
Speaker 1: what Trump will provide them is beyond their wildest dreams.
Speaker 2: But I think they're mistaken, and I make this point regularly.
Speaker 2: I think that the reason why the United States of
Speaker 2: America has as strong an economy as it still has
Speaker 2: is its stability. It's political stability and the rule of law.
Speaker 2: And I think that these people who think that well,
Speaker 2: Trump is good for them because they might get capital
Speaker 2: gains taxes are being very very short sighted. They're being
Speaker 2: morally they're morally bereft, but they're all so being very
Speaker 2: economically and politically shortsighted because I think that Trump, if
Speaker 2: he's elected, will create political disorder. I think the country
Speaker 2: will become ungovernable, ungovernable and vulnerable to you know, I
Speaker 2: mean capital flight and human capital and financial capital flight.
Speaker 2: And I don't think that's good for the economy. And
Speaker 2: that's I think people underestimate that.
Speaker 1: Do you ever think you could be you? You could find
Speaker 1: it in your soul to donate money. You give a
Speaker 1: very large donation to who was the nine hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty two thousand dollars donations is coming out of my kids.
Speaker 2: Drust nine and twenty nine thousand, six hundred. But who's
Speaker 2: counting to the Biden Victory Fund, which is is an
Speaker 2: amalgamation of the Biden campaign and various the National Democrats.
Speaker 1: Ate supporting that kind of work. I maybe not him personally.
Speaker 2: No, I mean no, I support I Look, I mean
Speaker 2: I disagree with him on many issues. I think if
Speaker 2: you gave me a policy menu, checklist, and where I
Speaker 2: come out would be different on a lot of things,
Speaker 2: although frankly in foreign policy, I think he's actually done
Speaker 2: a pretty good job. But the different that the thing
Speaker 2: about it is is that the difference is between the
Speaker 2: danger that I think is presented by his opponent is
Speaker 2: is so great that I think there's there there's it's
Speaker 2: a binary choice between those two, and I think there's
Speaker 2: there's only one choice for the survival of the of
Speaker 2: this democracy.
Speaker 1: You're excellent to law school, Yes, yeah, so I g
Speaker 1: w yes.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: My my joke is that your kids who are in
Speaker 1: the other room reading and doing their homework, and you
Speaker 1: and she are at the kitchen table arguing, and you're
Speaker 1: whipping out all these law books to each other.
Speaker 2: No, No, it was never like that. We agree. You know,
Speaker 2: if on a lot of things we agree and we
Speaker 2: still agree, it's just that I I just think that
Speaker 2: I just think that Trump has drawn people off course
Speaker 2: and and and that's not you know that, that's not
Speaker 2: I don't want to get into the personal stuff. But
Speaker 2: that's not that's not that's not what that story is about.
Speaker 2: Maybe she feels that I don't know on substance issues,
Speaker 2: I don't know that we disagree that much. And I
Speaker 2: don't understand how people who I otherwise might agree with
Speaker 2: can justify supporting someone who tried to overturn the Constitution
Speaker 2: of the United States, to give one minor example. But again,
Speaker 2: that's just I think that a lot of Republicans just
Speaker 2: went off the rails and they're just forgetting first principles
Speaker 2: and and they're just they've they've allowed partisanship to basically
Speaker 2: consume them. And I was, you know, I was a
Speaker 2: Republican because Republicans. Republicans tended to support things they've they
Speaker 2: more closely approximated my views. Okay, And that's why you
Speaker 2: vote for candidates. So you try to figure out who's
Speaker 2: going to do what you think most likely comports with
Speaker 2: where you are, and you may change your mind because
Speaker 2: you don't know everything and these people actually know more
Speaker 2: than you. But that's what that's what you do. But
Speaker 2: then when you have also you know, there's just how
Speaker 2: can you support some somebody who's just so bad because
Speaker 2: that you being bad morally affects how you govern. And
Speaker 2: that's another aspect of Trump is it's just I don't
Speaker 2: know how you know, people with the complete lack of
Speaker 2: moral character of Donald Trump should not be in public life, period.
Speaker 2: And that's my view, and I don't care, you know,
Speaker 2: I'd say that of a Democrat. I'd say that of anybody.
Speaker 1: Listen, Being a Democrat is not an easy road to
Speaker 1: hoe these days, because it's like, if Biden wins, which
Speaker 1: is looking dicey, but if Biden wins, then he drops
Speaker 1: out mid term. I mean, I know a lot of people,
Speaker 1: let's cut the bullshit. I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are terrified by the idea of Harris becoming the president.
Speaker 1: They don't think she's ready for that at all, and
Speaker 1: they're worried that with the Biden things, they don't want
Speaker 1: to vote for Biden because if it doesn't make it
Speaker 1: all the way she becomes president. This is very nervous
Speaker 1: about that. Does that make any sense to you without
Speaker 1: any of you making any assessments about her.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to make an assessment about her, I think.
Speaker 1: But you see how people feel that way.
Speaker 2: I think it's nuts you do, right, because basically anybody
Speaker 2: is going to be better than Donald Trump. Right, I'd
Speaker 2: vote for you over over Donald Trump. I mean that
Speaker 2: enough money in it? There's not enough money. I got
Speaker 2: I need a lot of money.
Speaker 1: But the other thing I want to ask you that
Speaker 1: if we're getting off to think about your wife and everything,
Speaker 1: is that So here we are in late May of
Speaker 1: the election year. How are things looking right now? I'm
Speaker 1: not saying you have to call it, but the election. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I'm fully confident. I've been saying this.
Speaker 2: This is not something I just pulling out at one
Speaker 2: fifty eight pm today as I think Trump's going to
Speaker 2: blow it. I think the way that the Biden people
Speaker 2: will beat Trump is to make him the issue. And
Speaker 2: Trump cannot help but make himself the issue. And basically
Speaker 2: there's a feedback loop where you just basically you point
Speaker 2: out this man is nuts, he's psycho, and you point
Speaker 2: out the crazy things that he does that makes him mad,
Speaker 2: and it makes him say and do crazier things. And
Speaker 2: then you point that out and I think that's actually
Speaker 2: what what they're going to try to do in this
Speaker 2: debate that they've agreed to at the end of June.
Speaker 2: I think that Biden people completely get the psychology of
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, and I think they have not. They are beginning.
Speaker 2: You can see signs of what they're doing. It's going
Speaker 2: to be I think the way you beat Donald Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is basically conduct the campaign as a syop, and
Speaker 2: he manipulate his brain and he's very He's so manipulable.
Speaker 2: He's uncontrollable, but he is manipulable as his own people
Speaker 2: find out. They try to manipulate them, but they can't
Speaker 2: control them. And so what you do is you can
Speaker 2: manipulate him into being out of control.
Speaker 1: So with the Supreme Court basically punting the January sixth trials,
Speaker 1: or at least for them, think the Supreme Court wants
Speaker 1: him to be president, obviously, No, I think.
Speaker 2: A lot of people are overreading what the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: did there. I don't think that's what they're doing. I
Speaker 2: think I would have preferred them to have taken a
Speaker 2: different course, namely not to have taken this case. But
Speaker 2: I think they really do. They really are looking at
Speaker 2: this in sort of an apt academic way, and they're saying, okay, well,
Speaker 2: there are some things obviously that a president can be
Speaker 2: prosecuted for, but there have to be limits, because what
Speaker 2: if I don't know, what if a Republican Congress were
Speaker 2: elected and along with President Biden reelected, and the Republican
Speaker 2: Congress pas some bill and somehow managed to get it
Speaker 2: over the president's veto. This is a wild hypothetical. It
Speaker 2: would never happen. Where it said that if the president
Speaker 2: didn't propose a balanced budget by January one every year,
Speaker 2: I'm just making something up. You know, he shall go
Speaker 2: to jail, you know after his term. You know, there
Speaker 2: are just some things that you could you could just
Speaker 2: see crazy laws that would be that could be passed,
Speaker 2: and crazy the applications of existing laws that could have
Speaker 2: had that would that would impinge upon the Article two duties.
Speaker 1: What hush hush money.
Speaker 2: Oh he's going down, you think, so, yeah, he's going down?
Speaker 2: Really yeah?
Speaker 3: Wrong.
Speaker 1: But you can get people in here who were so
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this to flatter you. You can get
Speaker 1: people here who are less influential than you are, and
Speaker 1: they're so cagy.
Speaker 2: They're like, well, you know, look, I look, I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm not saying when I say that, I
Speaker 2: accept the risk that you can't predict what twelve you're
Speaker 2: Michael are going to do in a room. But to
Speaker 2: unpack my I think he's going down is I just
Speaker 2: think it's highly likely that they're going to be a
Speaker 2: conviction on some are all of the thirty four counts.
Speaker 2: And I think there's only a small possibility but not
Speaker 2: non zero, I mean ten twenty percent maybe that that
Speaker 2: there could be a hung jury. I don't think there
Speaker 2: is any chance that there would be all out acquittal, right, Okay,
Speaker 2: So that's what I mean when I say you know
Speaker 2: he's going down, I think it's like, Okay, I think
Speaker 2: that you know. I'm going to the Rangers game tonight.
Speaker 2: I think the Rangers are going to win, but you
Speaker 2: know who.
Speaker 1: Knows my Thanks to George Conway. Here's the Thing is
Speaker 1: recorded at CDM Studios. This episode was produced by Kathleen Russo,
Speaker 1: Zach MacNeice, and Maureen Hoban. Our engineer is Frank Imperial.
Speaker 1: Our social media manager is Daniel Gingrich. Hi'm Alec Baldwin.
Speaker 1: Here's the Thing is brought to you by iHeart Radio.